the so-called "double-truth"

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

> . It
> is not clear to me on what basis one can classify "double-
> truth" theories into types, and say that this type is
> different from that one. Each such theory presents its own
> unique features.

I agree with mr. Zydenbos here, as I understand the point of view of the
prasangika-madhyamakas: language refers to things and a world which
isn't there. So all speech and thinking is based on an unjustified
'belief in a world' (Merleau-Ponty). This is simply our condition
humaine. So for practical purposes this ontic illusion is necessairy,
however form an ontological perspective it's an illusion and desastrous
for our self-understanding and this keeps us from inner peace. This
duplex ordo is a keystone in madhyamaka philosophy, it's very different
from a multiple truth system based on upa-ya kaus'alya as f.i. can be
found in the Saddharma Pun.d.ari-ka, Bhagavad Gïta and other rethorical
texts.


Erik Hoogcarspel